ANNEXES INDEPENDENT COUNTRY PROGRAMME EVALUATION - ARMENIA Contents Annex 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE .................................................................................................................. 2 Annex 2. COUNTRY AT A GLANCE .............................................................................................................. 12 Annex 3. COUNTRY OFFICE AT A GLANCE ................................................................................................. 14 Annex 4. PROJECT LIST ............................................................................................................................... 17 Annex 5. PEOPLE CONSULTED .................................................................................................................... 20 Annex 6. DOCUMENTS CONSULTED .......................................................................................................... 24 Annex 7. SUMMARY OF CPD INDICATORS AND STATUS AS REPORTED BY COUNTRY OFFICE ................ 25 1 Annex 1 – TERMS OF REFERENCE Cluster Evaluation of UNDP Country Programmes in Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States 1. Background to the evaluation The Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is undertaking a cluster evaluation of UNDP Country Programmes in 10 countries and 1 territory of Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (RBEC) each of which goes to the UNDP Executive Board in 2020 for the approval of their new Country Programme Documents (CPDs). Each of the 11 countries (and territory) will undergo an Independent Country Programme Evaluation (ICPE), examining UNDP’s work at the country level during the ongoing programme cycle 2016-2020. Results of the ICPEs are expected to provide a set of forward-looking recommendations as input to the new CPD development process for the next country programme development. The UNDP programme countries under review, which can be grouped under three sub-regions based on their unique challenges and priorities, include: Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan South Caucus and Western CIS: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus and Georgia Western Balkans & Turkey: North Macedonia, Serbia and Kosovo The outputs of this cluster evaluation will include 11 Independent Country Programme Evaluation (ICPE) Reports and a Regional Synthesis Report building on the ICPEs. 2. RBEC Regional Context and UNDP Programme The countries of Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States have recorded upward human development progress and significantly improved states capacity over the past two decades. All countries have achieved middle income status and eradicated extreme poverty during this period. At the same time, region has witnessed growing disparities in terms of income distribution, gender, and access to quality and affordable public services. While many countries have reached high and very high Human Development Indices, an estimated 70 million people in the region live on less than 10 USD/day and are vulnerable to poverty. According to the last regional HDR report for the region (2016), some countries identified up to 50 per cent of their workforce (particularly youth) as either long-term unemployed or engaged in precarious, informal employment. Social exclusion also affects ethnic minorities, including Roma communities, people living All references to Kosovo shall be understood to be in the context of the Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) 2 with disabilities and in ill-health. Some of the countries in the region have seen rapid growth in HIV infection rates. The countries of the region face similar governance challenges. Many are in need of public management reform, greater recognition and enforcement of the rule of law and access to justice, improved compliance with human rights and other international conventions, as well as greater engagement of women and civil society in government policy setting and decision making. The region is vulnerable to natural disasters including climate change related issues such as flooding, droughts, seismic risks, and environmental risks, some of which are exacerbated by human activities such as unsustainable water and land management practices, and high reliance on fossil fuels. All of these risks pose long terms threats to human security and biodiversity. Geopolitical tensions continue to affect the region due to on-going conflicts and the heritage from past conflicts. This is exacerbated by the geographical position of this region located at the juncture between Western Europe, Asia, and the middle east, making the region an important transit area but also a source and destination for human migration. Policy reforms at the sub regional level (Western Balkans, Central Asia, South Caucus and Western CIS) are influenced by the aspirations of countries to integrate with larger country groupings neighboring the regions, in particular the European Union. UNDP Programming in the region Between 2016-2018 (the review period), UNDP programmes in the 10 countries and 1 territory under review have aimed to contribute to sustainable and inclusive growth, accounting for almost 38% of the expenditure (core and non-core), followed by support to institutions to deliver on universal access to basic services (32%) and democratic governance (15%), and lowering the risk of natural disasters including from climate change (10%). Gender equality and women’s empowerment cuts across all outcome areas, with evidence of explicit support to promote women’s empowerment. Efforts are also being made to assist countries mainstreaming the SDGs. Figure 1 highlights the total programme expenditures by country for the 11 UNDP country programmes under review, the thematic distribution of which varies by country taking into account context, economic and social challenges in the three RBEC sub-regions. 3. Scope of the evaluation 3 The focus of the evaluation is the current country programme cycle (2016-2020) in the 10 countries and 1 territory, covering activities until the end of 2018. It will also include any ongoing projects and activities from the previous programme cycle that either continued or conclude in the current programme cycle. The scope of each of these ICPEs will include the entirety of UNDP’s activities in the country and therefore will cover interventions funded by all sources, including core UNDP resources, donor funds, government funds. Each of the ICPEs will pay particular attention to their sub-regional and regional development context within which the UNPD programme has operated. The roles and contributions of UNV and UNCDF in joint work with UNDP will also be captured by the evaluation. 4. Key Evaluation Questions and Guiding Principles The ICPEs will address the following three questions.: 1. What did the UNDP country programme intend to achieve during the period under review? 2. To what extent has the programme achieved (or is likely to achieve) its intended objectives? 3. What factors contributed to or hindered UNDP’s performance and eventually, the sustainability of results? ICPEs are conducted at the outcome level. To address question 1, a Theory of Change (ToC) approach will be used in consultation with stakeholders, as appropriate. Discussions of the ToC will focus on mapping the assumptions behind the programmes desired change(s) and the causal linkages between the intervention(s) and the intended country programme outcomes. As part of this analysis, the CPD’s progression over the review period will also be examined. In assessing the CPD’s progression, UNDP’s capacity to adapt to the changing context and respond to national development needs and priorities will also be looked at. The effectiveness of UNDP’s country programme will be analyzed under evaluation question 2. This will include an assessment of the achieved outputs and the extent to which these outputs have contributed to the intended CPD outcomes. In this process, both positive and negative, direct and indirect unintended outcomes will also be identified. To better understand UNDP’s performance, the specific factors that have influenced - both positively or negatively - UNDP’s performance and eventually, the sustainability of results in the country will be assessed under evaluation question 3. They will be examined in alignment with the engagement principles, drivers of development and alignment parameters of the Strategic Plan1, as well as the utilization of resources to deliver results and how managerial practices impacted achievement of programmatic goals. Special attention will be given to integrate a gender equality approach to data collection methods. To assess gender across the portfolio, the evaluation will use the gender marker2 and the gender results effectiveness scale (GRES).3 1 These principles include: national ownership and capacity; human rights-based approach; sustainable human development; gender equality and women’s empowerment; voice and participation; South-South and triangular cooperation; active role as global citizens; and universality. 2 A corporate tool to sensitize programme managers in advancing GEWE through assigning ratings to projects during project design to signify the level of expected contribution to GEWE. It can also be used to track planned programme expenditures on GEWE (not actual expenditures). 3 The GRES, developed as part of the corporate evaluation on UNDP’s contribution to gender equality and women’s 4 The regional synthesis will build on the findings from